Science communication by scientists and influencers on social media

Imamatul Silfia; Irwansyah Irwansyah

doi:10.24198/jmk.v7i1.40508

Science communication by scientists and influencers on social media

Imamatul Silfia, Irwansyah Irwansyah

Abstract

This study analyzes the shift in the science communication landscape, which is starting to be influenced by the presence of influencers on social media. Influencers who influence to construct audience opinions allow the birth of different interpretations of scientific information among the audience, especially the lay audience. These can be seen in the discussion about wildlife care tweeted by veterinarian Nur Purba Priambada who criticized influencer Alshad Ahmad. The reaction to Purbo's tweet shows that not all audiences agree with the scientific information shared by Purbo, even though Purbo has a scientific background. On the other side, some audiences support the influencer Alshad Ahmad who keeps the wildlife on his own. This study uses the netnographic method. This study aims to examines how science communication that takes place on social media affects audience reactions to scientific information shared by scientists and influencers, in this case, Purbo and Alshad Ahmad. The study result shows that the audience does not necessarily believe the information shared by people with scientific backgrounds in a scientific discussion on social media. Although some audiences believe the scientists' scientific information, other audiences trust the influencer more. This finding can be a consideration for scientists to develop an effective communication style on social media regarding scientific information to audiences, especially lay audiences.

Keywords

Audience; influencers; scientist; science communication; social media

Full Text:

PDF

References

Bik, H. M., & Goldstein, M. C. (2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biology, 11(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535

Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(3), 14096–14101. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212744110

Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory (L. Kahlor & P. Stout, eds.). New York: Taylor and Francis.

Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507087304

Collins, K., Shiffman, D., & Rock, J. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the workplace? PLoS ONE, 11(10), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162680

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (4th ed.). California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Enke, N., & Borchers, N. S. (2019). Social media influencers in strategic communication: A conceptual framework for strategic social media influencer communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 13(4), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2019.1620234

Ferchaud, A., Grzeslo, J., Orme, S., & LaGroue, J. (2018). Parasocial attributes and YouTube personalities: Exploring content trends across the most subscribed YouTube channels. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.041

Frederick, E. L., Lim, C. H., Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2012). Why we follow: An examination of parasocial interaction and fan motivations for following athlete archetypes on Twitter. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(4), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.5.4.481

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049

Jia, H., Wang, D., Miao, W., & Zhu, H. (2017). Encountered but not engaged: Examining the use of social media for science communication by Chinese Scientists. Science Communication, 39(5), 646–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735114

Jin, S. V., Ryu, E., & Muqaddam, A. (2021). I trust what she’s #endorsing on Instagram: Moderating effects of parasocial interaction and social presence in fashion influencer marketing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 25(4), 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-04-2020-0059

Karimah, R. H. N., & Fadillah. (2021). Buzz marketing as a new practice of digital advertising. IMOVICCON Conference Proceeding, 2(1), 102–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.37312/imoviccon.v2i1.46

Kaul, L., Schrögel, P., & Humm, C. (2020). Environmental science communication for a young audience: A case study on the #EarthOvershootDay campaign on YouTube. Frontiers in Communication, 5(December), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.601177

Kozinets, R. V. (2020). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research. California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Luzón, M. J. (2013). Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication, 30(4), 428–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610

Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C. (2014). Science blogging: An exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030205

McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail’s mass communication theory (5th ed.). California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Metcalfe, J. (2019). Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 382–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518821022

Moukarzel, S., Caduff, A., Rehm, M., Del Fresno, M., Pérez-Escamilla, R., & Daly, A. J. (2021). Breastfeeding communication strategies, challenges and opportunities in the twitter-verse: Perspectives of influencers and social network analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126181

Myers, G. (2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445603005002006

Nursaniyah, F. (2022, April 29). Profil Alshad Ahmad, YouTuber yang pelihara harimau di rumah. Kompas.Com. Retrieved from https://entertainment.kompas.com/read/2022/04/29/122128666/profil-alshad-ahmad-youtuber-yang-pelihara-harimau-di-rumah

Pöyry, E., Pelkonen, M., Naumanen, E., & Laaksonen, S. M. (2019). A call for authenticity: Audience responses to social media influencer endorsements in strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 13(4), 336–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2019.1609965

Radin, A. G. B., & Light, C. J. (2022). TikTok: An emergent opportunity for teaching and learning science communication online. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 23(1), 21–23. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00236-21

Reinikainen, H., Munnukka, J., Maity, D., & Luoma-aho, V. (2020). ‘You really are a great big sister’–parasocial relationships, credibility, and the moderating role of audience comments in influencer marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3–4), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1708781

Rohden, F. (2021). Experts, influencers, and amplifiers — Exploring climate movements’ hyperlinking practices. Journal of Science Communication, 20(7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20070209

Sands, S., Campbell, C. L., Plangger, K., & Ferraro, C. (2022). Unreal influence: Leveraging AI in influencer marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 56(6), 1721–1747. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2019-0949

Tolson, A. (2010). A new authenticity? Communicative practices on YouTube. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2010.511834

Xiong, L., Cho, V., Law, K. M. Y., & Lam, L. (2021). A study of KOL effectiveness on brand image of skincare products. Enterprise Information Systems, 15(10), 1483–1500. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2021.1924864

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/jmk.v7i1.40508